A request for reconsideration of the bureaucratic, sophisticated clerical denial

Dear Ms. Johnson,

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 25, 2010. You have as predicted, in my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari[1] dated Tuesday, August 10, 2010, denied me on questionable sophisticated grounds[2], not on the merits. I assume per some by the book procedure you refuse to allow consideration based on the merits. That is sophistry and a DENIAL of Justice for “We the People”. Not to worry, we still have time[3] you gave me 60 days (Saturday, October 09, 2010) and I gave you until Thursday, November 4, 2010.

In pursuit of Justice I appeal to a higher power? The Supreme Court? For reconsideration of your DENIAL based on sophisticated clerical grounds without consideration of the merits of the case.

As stated in the petition, I site Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) as precedent for the lack of professionalism in the petition. As Gideon successfully argued without constitutionally assured representation an innocent person can be denied his/her constitutional rights. I argue that with absolute immunity for Judges and trickle down immunity for others an innocent person can be denied his/her constitutional rights, Due Process of Law, even with professional constitutional representation. When immunity is invoked a person’s constitutional right to Due Process of Law is denied. Professional representation in an appeal is prohibitively expense if not impossible given the intimidation from the judiciary on issues questioning their integrity and immunity.

When there has been a denial of Due Process, that has been sanctioned under a grant of immunity in Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871), the appeal then becomes the FIRST initial prosecution of the law. The victim of potentially irreparable criminal damage, malice and corruption at his/her own expense is forced to prosecute the crime, as an appeal over long odds for any vindication. In that the appeal is then the case in chief, the FIRST trial on the issue, the same reasoning as was used in Gideon should apply to the grant of an attorney. At the very minimum the grant of a concession to allow for a non-professional, non-perfected appeal / petition from a clerical standpoint seems only reasonable.

Additionally I would assert that we all need to start talking “American[4]” here so that prohibitive professional expenses can be avoided, and MORE importantly… If Every person can not understand and communicate the law then it fails in its purpose, NO person can reliably seek its protection nor avoid its wrath.

In most civilized countries absolutism[5] in government evolved slowly over time into a civilized democratic limit to governmental power. America did not have that luxury; we do not have a civilized limit to governmental powers in the United States of America. It is not so much the constitution at issue as the means and methods utilized by its constitutionally limited but in reality unlimited departmental authorities. Our Judiciary refuses to enforce the limitations of the constitution on themselves, the executive and the oligarchy[6] in the legislature.

For example, our judiciary currently incarcerates five times[7] as many people in this country as any TRULY civilized country. This is not because of our drug laws as most would have you believe, this is because of the corrupt and malicious enforcement of those drug laws by an unrestrained, uncontrolled, dictatorial rule of the absolutely immune judiciary. Our openly admitted corrupt and malicious[8] Judiciary is unashamed, unrepentant and without compassion for their victims inviolable, inalienable rights. We of course have NO REAL RIGHTS in this country. We can NOT claim to be civilized, free or democratic. We live under the despotic dictatorial rule of the absolutely immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious Judiciary. We are not civilized; we are subjugated. I am not talking about nine judges isolated from the real world in an ivory tower on a hill. I am talking about absolute immunity for anyone performing a judicial function, this in application is construed as “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia” performs or for whatever reason assumes he/she is performing a judicial function. It is ABSOLUTE trickle down immunity.

Most civilized countries evolved over time from a dictatorial form of government to a limited democratic government. They had time; they were not forced to create it on the spot. Because of the at times tortuous slower evolution their form of governments are much more sensitive to the detrimental effects of absolutism. They have been literally tortured first hand with the effects of absolutism, with the Crusades, the Inquisition, Stalin's Five Year Plan, the Cultural Revolution, the Holocaust, centuries of border disputes, numerous periodic Ethnic Cleansings from the earliest recorded history up to and until the 1990s in Bosnia and Herzegovina not to mention the petty despots operating as minor government officials with the sovereignty and immunity of the royal they supposedly represent. And let us not forget to mention the despotic sovereigns of the realm, Nero watching Rome burn. As a result most civilized countries do not have the death penalty, they limit both their courts and their executive much more closely than we as Americans do. And their legislature is much more responsive to the needs[9] of the people and less subjugated by an oligarchy’s minority bias.

Our government was unfortunately first out of the box of modern attempts at limited democratic constitutional government; it was formed by necessity hastily. And because of America being first, the proverbial “American Myth of Exceptionalism” has distorted our evolution[10]. We see ourselves as perfection incarnate “The City Upon a Hill”. The Originalists[11] are the most prominent victims and proponents of the “American Myth of Exceptionalism.” They believe that the past 234 years of American success as stare decisis empowers them as the current Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to continue with absolute, immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious Judicial Authority. That is oh so WRONG!!!!!!!!! The Originalists say for 234 years we have been succeeding, why change now?

The American success of the last 234 years is not the result of the American Myth of Exceptionalism… absolutism. If anything the “American Myth of Exceptionalism” has been a hindrance to American advancement. America’s success is not the result of “We the People, Judicial absolute immunity, the City, the Society, the Constitution or the government on the hill. American success for the last 234 years is the DIRECT RESULT of the hill; it has nothing to do with absolutism of the “American Myth of Exceptionalism.” Our current socio-economic power is the direct result of THE HILL, our continents untapped natural resources and our once insatiable hunger to plunder it. This socio-economic success has given us the unwarranted feeling of invincibility, the sense of the “American Myth of Exceptionalism.” But I assure you we are not invincible, our natural resources are running out, most notably OIL. You need only look at how South Korean Automaker, Hyundai and Kia, have been able to take market share and displace if not eliminate General Motors, Chrysler and Ford in 10-20 years. We no longer have the hunger, 234 years of success has made us complacent. That is a basic, undeniable law of economics, success breeds complacency. If that were not the true, the rich would be rich forever. Change is good. The young replace the old. Omnia mutantur, nihil interit… everything changes, nothing perishes.

America’s success is definitely not the result of our perfection of self-governance or our Judiciary’s assertion of perfection. Our Judges NEVER were entitled to the absolute, immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious power of an assumed benevolent sovereign that they purport to have. They are not now nor EVER were thought to be perfect, as the King is assumed to be in English Common Law. One need only look at judicial history to see the flaws of Lochner[12], Plessy[13] and Mapp[14]. The errors we have had foisted upon us. That is in essence why we disposed of the King, to dispose of the individual independent absolutism that a King demands.

Mistakes are going to happen, it is not past or present errors that I take exception to here; it is the assertion of unquestionable unqualified immunity as an absolutism. The pervasive absolute immunity at virtually EVERY level in our government allows too much incompetence, malice and corruption and empowers too much unwarranted and irresistible authority.

Our forefathers saw this coming, by their now little regarded reference in the First Amendment’s right to redress[15]. It is nearly axiomatic; in America today you have to be a little crazy to think you can sue the government. Successful legal appeals in other civilized countries are not nearly as rare as in America. Most civilized countries question any assertion of absolutism, because they have historically paid the price for absolutism. Where Americans do not have that historical memory, we see ourselves as immune from the evils of absolutism, we have the “American Myth of Exceptionalism.”

Judges in America never had the Authority/Power of a monarch. A Judge’s authority in America, under the Constitution, flows from We the People by way of Due Process of Law. We the People, with our Constitution, established Due Process of Law to support and defend our individual, inviolable, inalienable RIGHTS and limit our government. If any person, authorized as a Judge or not, steps outside of Due Process of Law and asserts his/her will over another person it is a criminal act, a denial of rights[16]. For a Judge to do it is an egregious criminal act. If a Judge, who’s primary job responsibility and reason for being is the enforcement and oversight of procedural and substantive Due Process,[17] steps outside of procedural and substantive Due Process[18] it is coram non judice,[19] illegal and unconstitutional Judicial Tyranny and Terrorism[20] without justification and A HIGH CRIME[21].

I site Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) as an example of the pervasive judicial malice and corruption. The problem with Plessy is not so much in the affirmation of the statute to “provide equal but separate accommodations[22],” Justice Harlan’s dissent aside. The problem with Plessy was that the “equal” was NEVER enforced. The absolutely immune[23] judiciary’s means and methods were malicious and corrupt. The emancipated persons post civil war could not get access to the court system, much like I can not get access here. They could not get the absolutely immune, malicious, and corrupt Judges to acknowledge the obvious fact that the “equal” statute assertion to “provide equal but separate accommodations[24]” was being IGNORED. The “Originalists” with their assertion of the sophistry of the “American Myth of Exceptionalism” assert that the rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America are secondary to their assertion of absolutism, absolute power and immunity for themselves. They are attempting to deny us our inalienable, inviolable, “God Given” Constitutional and CIVIL RIGHTS with sophistry; the absolutism of their purported need for absolute, immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious enforcement of their will as a part of the “American Myth of Exceptionalism.” This absolutism of immunity is in place of “We the People’s” intent to “establish Justice” with our constitution, statute law, and common law precedent.

I enclose copies of two items, the origins of the issues in 07-2614[25] and 08-1823[26]. At the judicial inception of these TWO issues, there was no corruption or malice, there was just incompetence. As the issues progressed and the incompetence became undeniable malice and corruption took over and superseded the incompetence. Now I realize this is TOTALLY outside the gobbledygook of anything you could even hope to comprehend as formal legal argument. It is written in “American”. I ask your indulgence. Get a homeless person to read and explain it you.

At the origin of the issue in 07-2614, everything I cared for was taken from me without Due Process of Law. I was denied the constitutionally mandatory requirement for due process of law, probable cause. See the attached copy of the hand written petition / application / ex-parte order of protection by the respondent / defendant, Sharon G. Jeep, dated November 03, 2003. There is no probable cause listed as required by statutory law[27]and the Fourth Amendment[28]. There was no Due Process of Law.

NOTE: Judge Bennett in the court appearance in Camden County as described in the petition / application / ex-parte order of protection by the respondent / defendant Sharon G. Jeep recused himself for his bad act[29] in court on that DAY. Not that it excuses anything; it goes to establishes Judge Bennett’s culpability and relieves the culpability from the accused / respondent / petitioner David G. Jeep.

There is nothing even admissible in “hear say.” Much less a “hear say” account of an alleged unrelated bad act as probable cause for abuse, where the Judge recused himself for the BAD ACT. There is no logic. It makes no sense. It is a criminal, malicious, corrupt and self-serving charge by the respondent / defendant Sharon G. Jeep as ordered by the incompetent judicial officers Goeke and Jones. Again note, for judge Bennett’s involvement in the unrelated bad act referred to by the “hear say” reference he recused[30] himself thus confirming the “hear say” was groundless.

It is clear from the facts the respondent / defendant Sharon G. Jeep’s petition / application / ex-parte order of protection is a self-serving, malicious, corrupt, fraudulent and criminal charge after the fact. “The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.[31]” Judges, acting as tyrants, are terrorizing us. We do not have the civilized protection of the law. In a civilized country, persons have rights protected by enforceable law. We have no rights in this country; we are subject to the tyrannical rule of the despotic Judiciary.

At the origin of the issue in 08-1823 my driving privileges were illegally taken by a self-confessed, on the witness stand under oath, incompetent, corrupt and malicious police officer[32]. An incompetent, corrupt and malicious state’s attorney then prosecuted me[33].

The cases were both (07-2614 & 08-1823) originally adjudicated by absolute, immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious State Court Judges[34] who over timely motions and objections obstructed Justice. The cases at the State Court Appeals were denied by absolutely immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious State Appeals Court Judges’[35] arbitrary sophisticated clerical grounds to conceal the issue of judicial culpability. The Federal Civil Rights cases as presented to the United States Federal Court Eastern (07-CV-01116-CEJ) and Western (07-CV-0506-W-SOW) Districts of Missouri were denied by absolutely immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious Federal Court Judges[36]. The United States Eighth District Court of Appeals (07-2614 and 08-1823) denied the cases with absolute, immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious Federal Appeals Court Judge’s[37] rulings. The Cases were both brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of America as a Petition for the Writ of Certiorari 07-11115 and the absolute, immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious Supreme Court Justices[38] denied 07-2614 originally and 08-1823 for a combined rehearing.

I then took it again to the Federal Bureau Investigation (F.B.I.). The F.B.I., by their own professed assertion, are the lead agency for investigating violations of federal civil rights laws[39]. The F.B.I. denied me the protection of the law. The F.B.I. were allowed to deny me the protection of the law because the trickle down absolute immunity asserted by the Judiciary. The Attorney for the United States of America at the behest of the F.B.I. and the U.S.M.S. then arrested[40] me and held me without indictment for 208 days in violation of my civil rights. I was examined by TWO sets of forensic psychologist, defense and prosecution/state, I was found to be competent. I then wrote a letter entitled “We live in a Lawless Society.” My attorney filed a motion[41] including the letter entitled “We live in a Lawless Society” and I was released after 411 days of illegal, absolute, immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious incarceration. This was all overseen and approved by an absolute, immune, incompetent, corrupt and malicious Federal Magistrate Judge[42].

Now this is all based on the criminal actions of my ex-spouse, to defraud me out of my paternal rights and joint marital property, the machismo of an incompetent rookie police officer, that by his own admission on the stand under oath stated he did not know the standard for making a competent arrest, and the Judges acting in a professional capacity, with measured intent and over many timely objections and motions in court and subsequently outside court and appeals with incompetent, malicious, corrupt and absolute immunity(?), let it happen.

What did I do wrong?

I was driving down the road and a self professed incompetent rookie police officer wanted to make, what he thought to be a BIG arrest, I was unfortunately the closest victim; he knew he could get away with it because everybody does it.

I was sitting at home watching Monday Night Football my now ex-wife knowingly filed a bogus, legally deficient ex-parte order of protection ordered without legal or constitutional basis by a Judicial Terrorist;she knew she could get away with it because everybody does it.

The Judges do it all the time. They had nothing to worry about. They knew, they could get away with it. They had ABSOLUTE immunity.

Check the evidence as enclosed it is undisputed. The United States of America, the incompetent, corrupt, malicious and purported immune Justice Department has victimized me. By my count there are 13 state court judges[43] directly, 8 federal judges, 9 Supreme Court Justices and numerous others with trickle down immunity that have now with continuing criminal[44] fore knowledge denied my inviolable, inalienable Constitutional Civil RIGHT to a Due Process of Law.

What is Due Process of Law for if not to bring to light the incompetence, the malice and the corruption of criminal actors, under color of law?

I know you would prefer that I just fade away into the oblivion of a minor statistical issue. I am a person!!!! I will not and can not just fade away. Agere sequitur esse.[45] Further more I have RIGHTS and those inviolable, inalienable rights have been DENIED. I ask the question as inferred from United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882) , Page 106 U. S. 219 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)@ 403 US 394-395, what am I supposed to do? “There is no safety for the citizen in the protection of the malicious and corrupt judicial tribunals for rights which have been invaded by the officers of the government professing to act in its name. There remains to him but the alternative of resistance, which may amount to crime.” I have endured 7 years of denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration, two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street, what am I supposed to do? Do I again need to declare war? Shoot myself in the head? Recruit an army? Light myself on fire like a Buddhist Monk? Start shooting randomly? Commit suicide by cop? Symbolically starve myself to death? Blow something up?

When you live in America and the Justice Department has sanctioned incompetence, corruption and malice with absolute immunity and their vision of the absolutism, the “American Myth of Exceptionalism”, HOW DO YOU DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS???

Now you may think this is trivial of me. I should just be a Man, take it on the chin and move on. I can assure you it is NOT trivial. They have TAKEN everything from me. I live on the street. This appeal, the irreparable injury of the crime and the prosecution of the crime, has taken EVERYTHING from me. I will not just let it go and risk my son having to again deal with the same corruption in the future.

Here and NOW I am forced to say, “Give me Liberty or give me Death!!!” I refuse the offer of life without the guarantee of liberty and the protection of the laws required to sustain it, 7 years of denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration, two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street is too much to have endure. I dare say, for me, this will all be over by November 4, 2010… one-way or another.

You say it will be over 60 days after first notification (Tuesday August 10, 2010) of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (Saturday, October 09, 2010). Again, I know you would prefer that I just fade away into oblivion. That ain’t gonna happen. I am a person, Agere sequitur esse have RIGHTS and those inviolable, inalienable rights have been DENIED. I give the United States of America until Thursday, November 4, 2010 to attempt to settle the issue. I have endured 7 years of denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration, two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street. I have invested everything. I will not accept the incompetents, malice and corruption. Do I again need to declare war? Light myself on fire like a Buddhist Monk? Start shooting? Suicide by cop? Symbolically starve myself to death? Start blowing something up?

I am at my wits end.

It is time to put an end to the absolutism of “American Myth of Exceptionalism.” It is time to admit human fallibility and hold judges to a standard of professionalism just like any other person. It is time to free the rest of the world from the hubris of the “American Myth of Exceptionalism” and let them evolve at their own pace without American military intervention.

These items were all provide in the appeal process but as an addendum to the above referenced request for reconsideration please again find:

4.(1 copy) Petition Writ of Certiorari with Certificate of Service to the Solicitor General, stamped received Clerk Supreme Court U.S. August 17, 2010

Again I ask that you consider my Writ of Certiorari as enclosed here on the merits as stated here any in prior communication to you. If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

“Time is of the essence”

Thank you in advance.

David G. Jeep

enclosure: as noted above

cc: President Barack Obama

The Acting Solicitor General of the United States of America

Adam Liptak, New York Times, Washington, D.C.

The United Nations, Human Rights Commission

Chinese Embassy in Washington DC

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS SOUTHERN DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Respondent, )

v. ) S. D. No. 26269

DAVID G. JEEP, )

Appellant. )

IN THE CAMDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

TWENTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, ASSOCIATE DIVISION

The Honorable Bruce Colyer, Judge

STATE OF MISSOURI, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) Cause No. CR203-1336M

DAVID G. JEEP, )

Defendant. )

TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL

A L E X L I T T L E, called as a witness in behalf of the STATE, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. JEEP: Excerpt starting page 84

Q. The walk-and-turn and the balance test, the standards for applying that test, do they reference anything about footwear?

A. Yes. They say that if a person has on footwear that has like greater than four-inch heels, then you can allow them to take their footwear off, if they want to, to perform the test.

Q. Is it a four-inch heel?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or a two-inch heel?

A. It's a--If I'm not mistaken, it's a four-inch heel.

Q. Do you have that in writing anywhere?

A. Not on me now, no.

MR. JEEP: Do you have that? I asked for this earlier, Judge. No one was able to present me with it or they told me to look for it, and I looked under the NHTSA, I called NHTSA, they wanted me to buy it from them--

THE COURT: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. No.

MR. JEEP: Excuse me. They--The--

THE COURT: You asked the question, he's answered it.

MR. JEEP: Okay.

BY MR. JEEP:

Q. There's no place where this is standardized? Do you have in your--in writing anyplace?

A. I would assume I had it with the information that they gave me in the academy.

Q. Okay. And you think it's four-inch?

A. Yes, sir.

[1] See enclosed copy David G. Jeep v. United States of America, et al, A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Dated Tuesday, August 10, 2010, page one of nine, second paragraph. (note: If you need more copies see my BLOG http://dgjeep.blogspot.com/ you can cut and paste it into an e-mail and make as many as you want without wasting any trees.)

[3] Additionally, I take acceptation to your expensive and inhibiting requirements for U.S. Postage, numerous HARD copies and bibliographies when electronic transmission is cheaper, more ecological and electronic text and Internet links are easier to use.

[4] Not legal jargon, Not the King’s English but a facsimile commonly accept and understood in America.

[11]Originalism - In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that tries to find out the original meaning or intent and not impose new interpretations foreign to the original intention of the authors.

[14]Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) “The Exclusionary Rule” by slight of hand allows TWO criminals the absolutism of trickle down immunity, the criminal accused of the crime and the criminal that illegally invaded the rights of the accused.

[15] Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

[22] An act of the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, passed in 1890, providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races. Acts 1890, No. 111, p. 152. The first section of the statute enacts "that all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this State shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races

[24] An act of the General Assembly of the State of Louisiana, passed in 1890, providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races. Acts 1890, No. 111, p. 152. The first section of the statute enacts "that all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this State shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races

[28] Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation…”

[29] It should be further noted that at the time 11/03/03, I was charged not convicted and the hearsay evidence noted on the ex-parte order was proven false by Judge Bennett’s recusal.

[31]The Federalist No. 84, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered, Independent Journal, Wednesday, July 16, Saturday, July 26, Saturday, August 9, 1788 by Alexander Hamilton

[32] See the enclosed copy of the testimony transcript where arresting officer Little contradicts under oath, the denied exculpable published police procedure by declaring a 4” heel condition as acceptable when the published standard is a 2” heel.

[33] “Suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Pp.8 866-88. BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)

GoFundMe

Contact Form

About Me

“Where
an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is
safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where
there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite
cause.

Government
is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the
various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses.
This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which
impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” James
Madison “Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792”

The
strength of human civilization is its ability to OVERCOME our purely animal
instincts… CO-OPERATE for the GREATER GOOD!!Human civilization is the only species on this planet capable of
overcoming the animal instinct of Herbert Spencer’s discredited “survival of
the fittest.”This ability is what makes
us human, what makes us dominant and what separates us from the animals.

The
United States of America was FOUNDED on the "Love of Virtue."The Founding Fathers based their
constitutional assertions on the love of virtue as defined by Montesquieu’s
republican government’s essential ingredient, the willingness to put the
interests of the community ahead of private interests.We need to remember the, at the time,
“REVOLUTIONARY” “Love of Virtue” that this country was founded upon….